Marin Voice: Moving beyond housing debate

IN 1980, as a candidate for county supervisor (beaten handily twice), I can recall lamenting the dearth of affordable housing. Since then almost every candidate for county and local office has paid some lip service to the subject.

Thirty-three years later we are still having the same debate. The combatants have changed, but are no less fractious and once again digging in their heels.

Many of the issues are familiar though a new term — sustainability — is now in vogue. Loosely translated, it means preserving existing resources with minimal long-term damage. In the context of the housing debate, proponents equate it with civic responsibility as opposed to foes who they see as favoring social entitlement. There are valid claims on both sides.

Here are some of the questions:

 Are communities healthier and more vibrant with a diverse housing mix and who should be making those decisions?

 Should economics (depleted municipal budgets, greater demand for more services without the tax structures to support them, the impacts of reduced state funding) be the critical drivers as to who gets to live where?

 Should regional planners in faraway places be making local job growth projections based on statistical models which may have little bearing on reality?

 Is the process used to identify Priority Development Areas the most effective and transparent one possible or has it lacked proper citizen input?

 If local governance is the most responsive governance leading to more stable, prospering communities, what is the rationale for outside intervention? Or is regional goal setting a necessary motivator for laggard communities?

These are some of the vexing issues creating bitter divisions.

Today, there is certainly less developable space; environmental constraints both natural and legal have put greater pressures on localities that may be willing to assume their fair share of affordable housing providing suitable allocation formulas can be devised.

Heightened energy consciousness along with live-work, transit-friendly housing and more intelligent land use planning have gained currency as a means of reducing greenhouse gases and unclogging traffic arteries.

With two-thirds of the county safely under open space protection and with minimum population growth, anti-development advocates have lost much of their punch especially as a younger generation willing to look at creative alternatives has arrived. Nevertheless, prohibitive housing costs continue to limit their choices.

Housing scarcity is compounded by older homeowners justifiably not eager to give up property secured with the benefit of Prop 13 tax savings. Countering this is Marin's historical attraction for enterprising developers.

Even so, the most responsible developers must risk millions before final approvals are given, assuming they endure the regulatory gauntlet that can hold up a project for years. A small group of determined activists taking advantage of legal and environmental hurdles can derail even the most sensible proposal.

ABAG's Plan Bay Area appears in the minds of many to have created a false sense of moral rectitude before citizen concerns were fully addressed.

Each community is entitled to rigorous examination based on its own unique demographics, physical limitations and financial resources. It is unclear this was done satisfactorily before PDAs were approved and what works for one community may not for another.

Residents are justified in demanding the most collaborative process. That is the duty of city and county leaders, and in some cases they have failed.

Housing affordability is not an entitlement. But buildable property is a shared and scarce asset in Marin and it is time we move beyond rancorous debate to reasonable and equitable solutions.

Richard Rubin of Strawberry writes about political issues and is president of a public affairs management firm. His email is richardrubinassociates@gmail.com.